agora inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
[PATCH v21 7/8] Row pattern recognition patch (tests). 2889+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* [PATCH v21 7/8] Row pattern recognition patch (tests). @ 2024-08-26 04:32 Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Tatsuo Ishii @ 2024-08-26 04:32 UTC (permalink / raw) --- src/test/regress/expected/rpr.out | 836 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ src/test/regress/parallel_schedule | 2 +- src/test/regress/sql/rpr.sql | 405 ++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 1242 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 src/test/regress/expected/rpr.out create mode 100644 src/test/regress/sql/rpr.sql diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/rpr.out b/src/test/regress/expected/rpr.out new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..0789e09435 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/test/regress/expected/rpr.out @@ -0,0 +1,836 @@ +-- +-- Test for row pattern definition clause +-- +CREATE TEMP TABLE stock ( + company TEXT, + tdate DATE, + price INTEGER +); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-01', 100); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-02', 200); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-03', 150); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-04', 140); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-05', 150); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-06', 90); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-07', 110); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-08', 130); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-09', 120); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-10', 130); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-01', 50); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-02', 2000); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-03', 1500); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-04', 1400); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-05', 1500); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-06', 60); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-07', 1100); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-08', 1300); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-09', 1200); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-10', 1300); +SELECT * FROM stock; + company | tdate | price +----------+------------+------- + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 +(20 rows) + +-- basic test using PREV +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w, + nth_value(tdate, 2) OVER w AS nth_second + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value | nth_second +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 140 | 07-02-2023 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | 90 | 120 | 07-07-2023 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | | | + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1400 | 07-02-2023 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | 60 | 1200 | 07-07-2023 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | | | + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | | +(20 rows) + +-- basic test using PREV. UP appears twice +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w, + nth_value(tdate, 2) OVER w AS nth_second + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+ UP+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value | nth_second +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 150 | 07-02-2023 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | 90 | 130 | 07-07-2023 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | | | + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1500 | 07-02-2023 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | 60 | 1300 | 07-07-2023 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | | | + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | | +(20 rows) + +-- basic test using PREV. Use '*' +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w, + nth_value(tdate, 2) OVER w AS nth_second + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP* DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value | nth_second +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 140 | 07-02-2023 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | 150 | 90 | 07-06-2023 + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | | | + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | 110 | 120 | 07-08-2023 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1400 | 07-02-2023 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | 1500 | 60 | 07-06-2023 + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | | | + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | 1100 | 1200 | 07-08-2023 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | | +(20 rows) + +-- basic test with none greedy pattern +SELECT company, tdate, price, count(*) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (A A A) + DEFINE + A AS price >= 140 AND price <= 150 +); + company | tdate | price | count +----------+------------+-------+------- + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 0 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | 0 + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | 3 + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | 0 + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | 0 + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | 0 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | 0 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | 0 + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | 0 + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | 0 + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 0 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | 0 + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | 0 + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | 0 + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | 0 + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | 0 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | 0 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | 0 + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | 0 + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | 0 +(20 rows) + +-- last_value() should remain consistent +SELECT company, tdate, price, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | last_value +----------+------------+-------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 140 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | 120 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 1400 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | 1200 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | +(20 rows) + +-- omit "START" in DEFINE but it is ok because "START AS TRUE" is +-- implicitly defined. per spec. +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w, + nth_value(tdate, 2) OVER w AS nth_second + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value | nth_second +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 140 | 07-02-2023 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | 90 | 120 | 07-07-2023 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | | | + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1400 | 07-02-2023 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | 60 | 1200 | 07-07-2023 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | | | + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | | +(20 rows) + +-- the first row start with less than or equal to 100 +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (LOWPRICE UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + LOWPRICE AS price <= 100, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 140 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | 90 | 120 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | | + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1400 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | 60 | 1200 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | | + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | +(20 rows) + +-- second row raises 120% +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (LOWPRICE UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + LOWPRICE AS price <= 100, + UP AS price > PREV(price) * 1.2, + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 140 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | | + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | | + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1400 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | | + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | | + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | +(20 rows) + +-- using NEXT +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UPDOWN) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UPDOWN AS price > PREV(price) AND price > NEXT(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 200 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | 140 | 150 + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | | + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | 110 | 130 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 2000 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | 1400 | 1500 + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | | + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | 1100 | 1300 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | +(20 rows) + +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UPDOWN) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UPDOWN AS price > PREV(price) AND price > NEXT(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 200 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | 140 | 150 + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | | + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | 110 | 130 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 2000 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | 1400 | 1500 + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | | + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | 1100 | 1300 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | +(20 rows) + +-- match everything +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW + INITIAL + PATTERN (A+) + DEFINE + A AS TRUE +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 130 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | | + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | | + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1300 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | | + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | | + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | +(20 rows) + +-- backtracking with reclassification of rows +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(tdate) OVER w, last_value(tdate) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW + INITIAL + PATTERN (A+ B+) + DEFINE + A AS price > 100, + B AS price > 100 +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | | + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | 07-02-2023 | 07-05-2023 + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | | + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | 07-07-2023 | 07-10-2023 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | | + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | 07-02-2023 | 07-05-2023 + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | | + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | 07-07-2023 | 07-10-2023 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | +(20 rows) + +-- backtracking with reclassification of rows +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(tdate) OVER w, last_value(tdate) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW + INITIAL + PATTERN (A+ B+) + DEFINE + A AS price > 100, + B AS price > 100 +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------ + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | | + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | 07-02-2023 | 07-05-2023 + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | 07-03-2023 | 07-05-2023 + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | 07-04-2023 | 07-05-2023 + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | | + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | 07-07-2023 | 07-10-2023 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | 07-08-2023 | 07-10-2023 + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | 07-09-2023 | 07-10-2023 + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | | + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | 07-02-2023 | 07-05-2023 + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | 07-03-2023 | 07-05-2023 + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | 07-04-2023 | 07-05-2023 + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | | + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | 07-07-2023 | 07-10-2023 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | 07-08-2023 | 07-10-2023 + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | 07-09-2023 | 07-10-2023 + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | +(20 rows) + +-- ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND offset FOLLOWING +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(tdate) OVER w, last_value(tdate) OVER w, + count(*) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND 2 FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value | count +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------+------- + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 07-01-2023 | 07-03-2023 | 3 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | | 0 + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | | 0 + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | 07-04-2023 | 07-06-2023 | 3 + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | | 0 + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | | | 0 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | 07-07-2023 | 07-09-2023 | 3 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | | 0 + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | | 0 + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | | 0 + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 07-01-2023 | 07-03-2023 | 3 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | | 0 + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | | 0 + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | 07-04-2023 | 07-06-2023 | 3 + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | | 0 + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | | | 0 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | 07-07-2023 | 07-09-2023 | 3 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | | 0 + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | | 0 + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | | 0 +(20 rows) + +-- +-- Aggregates +-- +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, + first_value(price) OVER w, + last_value(price) OVER w, + max(price) OVER w, + min(price) OVER w, + sum(price) OVER w, + avg(price) OVER w, + count(price) OVER w +FROM stock +WINDOW w AS ( +PARTITION BY company +ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING +AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW +INITIAL +PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) +DEFINE +START AS TRUE, +UP AS price > PREV(price), +DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value | max | min | sum | avg | count +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------+------+-----+------+-----------------------+------- + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 140 | 200 | 100 | 590 | 147.5000000000000000 | 4 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | 90 | 120 | 130 | 90 | 450 | 112.5000000000000000 | 4 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1400 | 2000 | 50 | 4950 | 1237.5000000000000000 | 4 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | 60 | 1200 | 1300 | 60 | 3660 | 915.0000000000000000 | 4 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | | | | | | 0 +(20 rows) + +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, + first_value(price) OVER w, + last_value(price) OVER w, + max(price) OVER w, + min(price) OVER w, + sum(price) OVER w, + avg(price) OVER w, + count(price) OVER w +FROM stock +WINDOW w AS ( +PARTITION BY company +ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING +AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW +INITIAL +PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) +DEFINE +START AS TRUE, +UP AS price > PREV(price), +DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + company | tdate | price | first_value | last_value | max | min | sum | avg | count +----------+------------+-------+-------------+------------+------+------+------+-----------------------+------- + company1 | 07-01-2023 | 100 | 100 | 140 | 200 | 100 | 590 | 147.5000000000000000 | 4 + company1 | 07-02-2023 | 200 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-03-2023 | 150 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-04-2023 | 140 | 140 | 90 | 150 | 90 | 380 | 126.6666666666666667 | 3 + company1 | 07-05-2023 | 150 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-06-2023 | 90 | 90 | 120 | 130 | 90 | 450 | 112.5000000000000000 | 4 + company1 | 07-07-2023 | 110 | 110 | 120 | 130 | 110 | 360 | 120.0000000000000000 | 3 + company1 | 07-08-2023 | 130 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-09-2023 | 120 | | | | | | | 0 + company1 | 07-10-2023 | 130 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-01-2023 | 50 | 50 | 1400 | 2000 | 50 | 4950 | 1237.5000000000000000 | 4 + company2 | 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-04-2023 | 1400 | 1400 | 60 | 1500 | 60 | 2960 | 986.6666666666666667 | 3 + company2 | 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-06-2023 | 60 | 60 | 1200 | 1300 | 60 | 3660 | 915.0000000000000000 | 4 + company2 | 07-07-2023 | 1100 | 1100 | 1200 | 1300 | 1100 | 3600 | 1200.0000000000000000 | 3 + company2 | 07-08-2023 | 1300 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-09-2023 | 1200 | | | | | | | 0 + company2 | 07-10-2023 | 1300 | | | | | | | 0 +(20 rows) + +-- JOIN case +CREATE TEMP TABLE t1 (i int, v1 int); +CREATE TEMP TABLE t2 (j int, v2 int); +INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,10); +INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,11); +INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,12); +INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(2,10); +INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(2,11); +INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(2,12); +SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.v1 <= 11 AND t2.v2 <= 11; + i | v1 | j | v2 +---+----+---+---- + 1 | 10 | 2 | 10 + 1 | 10 | 2 | 11 + 1 | 11 | 2 | 10 + 1 | 11 | 2 | 11 +(4 rows) + +SELECT *, count(*) OVER w FROM t1, t2 +WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY t1.i + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (A) + DEFINE + A AS v1 <= 11 AND v2 <= 11 +); + i | v1 | j | v2 | count +---+----+---+----+------- + 1 | 10 | 2 | 10 | 1 + 1 | 10 | 2 | 11 | 1 + 1 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 0 + 1 | 11 | 2 | 10 | 1 + 1 | 11 | 2 | 11 | 1 + 1 | 11 | 2 | 12 | 0 + 1 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 0 + 1 | 12 | 2 | 11 | 0 + 1 | 12 | 2 | 12 | 0 +(9 rows) + +-- WITH case +WITH wstock AS ( + SELECT * FROM stock WHERE tdate < '2023-07-08' +) +SELECT tdate, price, +first_value(tdate) OVER w, +count(*) OVER w + FROM wstock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + tdate | price | first_value | count +------------+-------+-------------+------- + 07-01-2023 | 100 | 07-01-2023 | 4 + 07-02-2023 | 200 | | 0 + 07-03-2023 | 150 | | 0 + 07-04-2023 | 140 | | 0 + 07-05-2023 | 150 | | 0 + 07-06-2023 | 90 | | 0 + 07-07-2023 | 110 | | 0 + 07-01-2023 | 50 | 07-01-2023 | 4 + 07-02-2023 | 2000 | | 0 + 07-03-2023 | 1500 | | 0 + 07-04-2023 | 1400 | | 0 + 07-05-2023 | 1500 | | 0 + 07-06-2023 | 60 | | 0 + 07-07-2023 | 1100 | | 0 +(14 rows) + +-- +-- Error cases +-- +-- row pattern definition variable name must not appear more than once +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price), + UP AS price > PREV(price) +); +ERROR: row pattern definition variable name "up" appears more than once in DEFINE clause +LINE 11: UP AS price > PREV(price), + ^ +-- subqueries in DEFINE clause are not supported +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START LOWPRICE) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + LOWPRICE AS price < (SELECT 100) +); +ERROR: cannot use subquery in DEFINE expression +LINE 11: LOWPRICE AS price < (SELECT 100) + ^ +-- aggregates in DEFINE clause are not supported +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START LOWPRICE) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + LOWPRICE AS price < count(*) +); +ERROR: aggregate functions are not allowed in DEFINE +LINE 11: LOWPRICE AS price < count(*) + ^ +-- FRAME must start at current row when row patttern recognition is used +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); +ERROR: FRAME must start at current row when row patttern recognition is used +-- SEEK is not supported +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW + SEEK + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); +ERROR: SEEK is not supported +LINE 8: SEEK + ^ +HINT: Use INITIAL. diff --git a/src/test/regress/parallel_schedule b/src/test/regress/parallel_schedule index f53a526f7c..299354c9ae 100644 --- a/src/test/regress/parallel_schedule +++ b/src/test/regress/parallel_schedule @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ test: publication subscription # Another group of parallel tests # select_views depends on create_view # ---------- -test: select_views portals_p2 foreign_key cluster dependency guc bitmapops combocid tsearch tsdicts foreign_data window xmlmap functional_deps advisory_lock indirect_toast equivclass +test: select_views portals_p2 foreign_key cluster dependency guc bitmapops combocid tsearch tsdicts foreign_data window xmlmap functional_deps advisory_lock indirect_toast equivclass rpr # ---------- # Another group of parallel tests (JSON related) diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/rpr.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/rpr.sql new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..302e2b86a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/test/regress/sql/rpr.sql @@ -0,0 +1,405 @@ +-- +-- Test for row pattern definition clause +-- + +CREATE TEMP TABLE stock ( + company TEXT, + tdate DATE, + price INTEGER +); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-01', 100); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-02', 200); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-03', 150); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-04', 140); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-05', 150); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-06', 90); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-07', 110); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-08', 130); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-09', 120); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company1', '2023-07-10', 130); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-01', 50); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-02', 2000); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-03', 1500); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-04', 1400); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-05', 1500); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-06', 60); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-07', 1100); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-08', 1300); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-09', 1200); +INSERT INTO stock VALUES ('company2', '2023-07-10', 1300); + +SELECT * FROM stock; + +-- basic test using PREV +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w, + nth_value(tdate, 2) OVER w AS nth_second + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- basic test using PREV. UP appears twice +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w, + nth_value(tdate, 2) OVER w AS nth_second + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+ UP+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- basic test using PREV. Use '*' +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w, + nth_value(tdate, 2) OVER w AS nth_second + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP* DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- basic test with none greedy pattern +SELECT company, tdate, price, count(*) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (A A A) + DEFINE + A AS price >= 140 AND price <= 150 +); + +-- last_value() should remain consistent +SELECT company, tdate, price, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- omit "START" in DEFINE but it is ok because "START AS TRUE" is +-- implicitly defined. per spec. +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w, + nth_value(tdate, 2) OVER w AS nth_second + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- the first row start with less than or equal to 100 +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (LOWPRICE UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + LOWPRICE AS price <= 100, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- second row raises 120% +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (LOWPRICE UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + LOWPRICE AS price <= 100, + UP AS price > PREV(price) * 1.2, + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- using NEXT +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UPDOWN) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UPDOWN AS price > PREV(price) AND price > NEXT(price) +); + +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UPDOWN) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UPDOWN AS price > PREV(price) AND price > NEXT(price) +); + +-- match everything + +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW + INITIAL + PATTERN (A+) + DEFINE + A AS TRUE +); + +-- backtracking with reclassification of rows +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(tdate) OVER w, last_value(tdate) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW + INITIAL + PATTERN (A+ B+) + DEFINE + A AS price > 100, + B AS price > 100 +); + +-- backtracking with reclassification of rows +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(tdate) OVER w, last_value(tdate) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW + INITIAL + PATTERN (A+ B+) + DEFINE + A AS price > 100, + B AS price > 100 +); + +-- ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND offset FOLLOWING +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(tdate) OVER w, last_value(tdate) OVER w, + count(*) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND 2 FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- +-- Aggregates +-- + +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, + first_value(price) OVER w, + last_value(price) OVER w, + max(price) OVER w, + min(price) OVER w, + sum(price) OVER w, + avg(price) OVER w, + count(price) OVER w +FROM stock +WINDOW w AS ( +PARTITION BY company +ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING +AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW +INITIAL +PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) +DEFINE +START AS TRUE, +UP AS price > PREV(price), +DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- using AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW +SELECT company, tdate, price, + first_value(price) OVER w, + last_value(price) OVER w, + max(price) OVER w, + min(price) OVER w, + sum(price) OVER w, + avg(price) OVER w, + count(price) OVER w +FROM stock +WINDOW w AS ( +PARTITION BY company +ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING +AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW +INITIAL +PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) +DEFINE +START AS TRUE, +UP AS price > PREV(price), +DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- JOIN case +CREATE TEMP TABLE t1 (i int, v1 int); +CREATE TEMP TABLE t2 (j int, v2 int); +INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,10); +INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,11); +INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,12); +INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(2,10); +INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(2,11); +INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(2,12); + +SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.v1 <= 11 AND t2.v2 <= 11; + +SELECT *, count(*) OVER w FROM t1, t2 +WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY t1.i + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (A) + DEFINE + A AS v1 <= 11 AND v2 <= 11 +); + +-- WITH case +WITH wstock AS ( + SELECT * FROM stock WHERE tdate < '2023-07-08' +) +SELECT tdate, price, +first_value(tdate) OVER w, +count(*) OVER w + FROM wstock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- +-- Error cases +-- + +-- row pattern definition variable name must not appear more than once +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price), + UP AS price > PREV(price) +); + +-- subqueries in DEFINE clause are not supported +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START LOWPRICE) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + LOWPRICE AS price < (SELECT 100) +); + +-- aggregates in DEFINE clause are not supported +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START LOWPRICE) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + LOWPRICE AS price < count(*) +); + +-- FRAME must start at current row when row patttern recognition is used +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + INITIAL + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); + +-- SEEK is not supported +SELECT company, tdate, price, first_value(price) OVER w, last_value(price) OVER w + FROM stock + WINDOW w AS ( + PARTITION BY company + ORDER BY tdate + ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING + AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW + SEEK + PATTERN (START UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + START AS TRUE, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); -- 2.25.1 ----Next_Part(Mon_Aug_26_13_39_47_2024_878)-- Content-Type: Text/X-Patch; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="v21-0008-Allow-to-print-raw-parse-tree.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-03 15:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2889+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2024-08-26 04:32 [PATCH v21 7/8] Row pattern recognition patch (tests). Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox