agora inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedcreatelang - ?
2894+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* createlang - ?
@ 1999-05-23 12:04 Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:18 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Vadim Mikheev @ 1999-05-23 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: PostgreSQL Developers List <[email protected]>
CURRENT/pgsql/src/test/regress > gmake runtest
MULTIBYTE=;export MULTIBYTE; \
/bin/sh ./regress.sh freebsd 2>&1 | tee regress.out
=============== Notes... =================
postmaster must already be running for the regression tests to succeed.
The time zone is now set to PST8PDT explicitly by this regression test
client frontend. Please report any apparent problems to
[email protected]
See regress/README for more information.
=============== destroying old regression database... =================
=============== creating new regression database... =================
=============== installing PL/pgSQL... =================
createlang: not found
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
createlang failed
ACTUAL RESULTS OF REGRESSION TEST ARE NOW IN FILE regress.out
Vadim
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ?
1999-05-23 12:04 createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
@ 1999-05-25 07:18 ` Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:27 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Jan Wieck @ 1999-05-25 07:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
>
> CURRENT/pgsql/src/test/regress > gmake runtest
> MULTIBYTE=;export MULTIBYTE; \
> /bin/sh ./regress.sh freebsd 2>&1 | tee regress.out
> =============== Notes... =================
> postmaster must already be running for the regression tests to succeed.
> The time zone is now set to PST8PDT explicitly by this regression test
> client frontend. Please report any apparent problems to
> [email protected]
> See regress/README for more information.
>
> =============== destroying old regression database... =================
> =============== creating new regression database... =================
> =============== installing PL/pgSQL... =================
> createlang: not found
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> createlang failed
> ACTUAL RESULTS OF REGRESSION TEST ARE NOW IN FILE regress.out
Did you do a complete "make clean install" of the bin tree as
well? It's a new utility script since I've taken out the
installation of PL/pgSQL from initdb.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== [email protected] (Jan Wieck) #
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ?
1999-05-23 12:04 createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:18 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
@ 1999-05-25 07:27 ` Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:44 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 13:54 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Vadim Mikheev @ 1999-05-25 07:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Wieck <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > createlang: not found
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > createlang failed
> > ACTUAL RESULTS OF REGRESSION TEST ARE NOW IN FILE regress.out
>
> Did you do a complete "make clean install" of the bin tree as
> well? It's a new utility script since I've taken out the
> installation of PL/pgSQL from initdb.
I don't see createlang dir in bin tree after cvs update !
Something wrong in my CVS setup ?
Vadim
P.S. BTW, shouldn't PL/pgSQL be installed by default ?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ?
1999-05-23 12:04 createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:18 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:27 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
@ 1999-05-25 07:44 ` Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Jan Wieck @ 1999-05-25 07:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> > > createlang: not found
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > createlang failed
> > > ACTUAL RESULTS OF REGRESSION TEST ARE NOW IN FILE regress.out
> >
> > Did you do a complete "make clean install" of the bin tree as
> > well? It's a new utility script since I've taken out the
> > installation of PL/pgSQL from initdb.
>
> I don't see createlang dir in bin tree after cvs update !
> Something wrong in my CVS setup ?
Seems so:
cvs server: Logging createlang
RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/createlang/Makefile,v
Working file: createlang/Makefile
head: 1.1
branch:
locks: strict
access list:
symbolic names:
keyword substitution: kv
total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1
description:
----------------------------
revision 1.1
date: 1999/05/20 16:50:00; author: wieck; state: Exp;
Removed the automatic installation of built procedural languages
from initdb again.
Added two new commands, createlang and destroylang to bin. These
hopefully end this damned mklang.sql discussion.
Jan
=============================================================================
RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/createlang/createlang.sh,v
Working file: createlang/createlang.sh
head: 1.1
branch:
locks: strict
access list:
symbolic names:
keyword substitution: kv
total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1
description:
----------------------------
revision 1.1
date: 1999/05/20 16:50:00; author: wieck; state: Exp;
Removed the automatic installation of built procedural languages
from initdb again.
Added two new commands, createlang and destroylang to bin. These
hopefully end this damned mklang.sql discussion.
Jan
=============================================================================
>
> Vadim
> P.S. BTW, shouldn't PL/pgSQL be installed by default ?
>
Some want (me too) - some don't want it to be installed by
default. But I can live with installing it after initdb into
template1. In that case any subsequent createdb automagically
installs it in the new databases.
It's IMHO the most flexible setup that meets most needs.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== [email protected] (Jan Wieck) #
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ?
1999-05-23 12:04 createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:18 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:27 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
@ 1999-05-25 13:54 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 15:05 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 1999-05-25 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]> writes:
> I don't see createlang dir in bin tree after cvs update !
You won't until you run cvs update with -d switch (which allows it
to create new subdirectories).
I think cvs' default behavior for subdirectories is pretty brain-dead,
so I keep the following entries in ~/.cvsrc:
update -d -P
checkout -P
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ?
1999-05-23 12:04 createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:18 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:27 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 13:54 ` Re: [HACKERS] createlang - ? Tom Lane <[email protected]>
@ 1999-05-25 15:05 ` Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Vadim Mikheev @ 1999-05-25 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]> writes:
> > I don't see createlang dir in bin tree after cvs update !
>
> You won't until you run cvs update with -d switch (which allows it
> to create new subdirectories).
Thanks! Got it now.
Vadim
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-03 15:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2894+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-05-23 12:04 createlang - ? Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:18 ` Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:27 ` Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 07:44 ` Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 13:54 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
1999-05-25 15:05 ` Vadim Mikheev <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy 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