agora inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
[PATCH v9 5/7] Row pattern recognition patch (docs). 2889+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* [PATCH v9 5/7] Row pattern recognition patch (docs). @ 2023-10-04 05:51 Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Tatsuo Ishii @ 2023-10-04 05:51 UTC (permalink / raw) --- doc/src/sgml/advanced.sgml | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ doc/src/sgml/func.sgml | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/advanced.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/advanced.sgml index 755c9f1485..f39ec8f2d5 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/advanced.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/advanced.sgml @@ -537,6 +537,58 @@ WHERE pos < 3; <literal>rank</literal> less than 3. </para> + <para> + Row pattern common syntax can be used with row pattern common syntax to + perform row pattern recognition in a query. Row pattern common syntax + includes two sub clauses. <literal>DEFINE</literal> defines definition + variables along with an expression. The expression must be a logical + expression, which means it must + return <literal>TRUE</literal>, <literal>FALSE</literal> + or <literal>NULL</literal>. Moreover if the expression comprises a column + reference, it must be the argument of <function>rpr</function>. An example + of <literal>DEFINE</literal> is as follows. + +<programlisting> +DEFINE + LOWPRICE AS price <= 100, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +</programlisting> + + Note that <function>PREV</function> returns price column in the previous + row if it's called in a context of row pattern recognition. So in the + second line means the definition variable "UP" is <literal>TRUE</literal> + when price column in the current row is greater than the price column in + the previous row. Likewise, "DOWN" is <literal>TRUE</literal> when when + price column in the current row is lower than the price column in the + previous row. + </para> + <para> + Once <literal>DEFINE</literal> exists, <literal>PATTERN</literal> can be + used. <literal>PATTERN</literal> defines a sequence of rows that satisfies + certain conditions. For example following <literal>PATTERN</literal> + defines that a row starts with the condition "LOWPRICE", then one or more + rows satisfy "UP" and finally one or more rows satisfy "DOWN". If a + sequence of rows found, rpr returns the column at the starting row. + Example of a <literal>SELECT</literal> using the <literal>DEFINE</literal> + and <literal>PATTERN</literal> clause is as follows. + +<programlisting> +SELECT company, tdate, price, max(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 (LOWPRICE UP+ DOWN+) + DEFINE + LOWPRICE AS price <= 100, + UP AS price > PREV(price), + DOWN AS price < PREV(price) +); +</programlisting> + </para> + <para> When a query involves multiple window functions, it is possible to write out each one with a separate <literal>OVER</literal> clause, but this is diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml index f1ad64c3d6..6c46ea4355 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml @@ -21780,6 +21780,7 @@ SELECT count(*) FROM sometable; returns <literal>NULL</literal> if there is no such row. </para></entry> </row> + </tbody> </tgroup> </table> @@ -21819,6 +21820,59 @@ SELECT count(*) FROM sometable; Other frame specifications can be used to obtain other effects. </para> + <para> + Row pattern recognition navigation functions are listed in + <xref linkend="functions-rpr-navigation-table"/>. These functions + can be used to describe DEFINE clause of Row pattern recognition. + </para> + + <table id="functions-rpr-navigation-table"> + <title>Row Pattern Navigation Functions</title> + <tgroup cols="1"> + <thead> + <row> + <entry role="func_table_entry"><para role="func_signature"> + Function + </para> + <para> + Description + </para></entry> + </row> + </thead> + + <tbody> + <row> + <entry role="func_table_entry"><para role="func_signature"> + <indexterm> + <primary>prev</primary> + </indexterm> + <function>prev</function> ( <parameter>value</parameter> <type>anyelement</type> ) + <returnvalue>anyelement</returnvalue> + </para> + <para> + Returns the column value at the previous row; + returns NULL if there is no previous row in the window frame. + </para></entry> + </row> + + <row> + <entry role="func_table_entry"><para role="func_signature"> + <indexterm> + <primary>next</primary> + </indexterm> + <function>next</function> ( <parameter>value</parameter> <type>anyelement</type> ) + <returnvalue>anyelement</returnvalue> + </para> + <para> + Returns the column value at the next row; + returns NULL if there is no next row in the window frame. + </para></entry> + </row> + + </tbody> + </tgroup> + </table> + <note> <para> The SQL standard defines a <literal>RESPECT NULLS</literal> or diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml index 42d78913cf..522ad9dd70 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml @@ -969,8 +969,8 @@ WINDOW <replaceable class="parameter">window_name</replaceable> AS ( <replaceabl The <replaceable class="parameter">frame_clause</replaceable> can be one of <synopsis> -{ RANGE | ROWS | GROUPS } <replaceable>frame_start</replaceable> [ <replaceable>frame_exclusion</replaceable> ] -{ RANGE | ROWS | GROUPS } BETWEEN <replaceable>frame_start</replaceable> AND <replaceable>frame_end</replaceable> [ <replaceable>frame_exclusion</replaceable> ] +{ RANGE | ROWS | GROUPS } <replaceable>frame_start</replaceable> [ <replaceable>frame_exclusion</replaceable> ] [row_pattern_common_syntax] +{ RANGE | ROWS | GROUPS } BETWEEN <replaceable>frame_start</replaceable> AND <replaceable>frame_end</replaceable> [ <replaceable>frame_exclusion</replaceable> ] [row_pattern_common_syntax] </synopsis> where <replaceable>frame_start</replaceable> @@ -1077,6 +1077,40 @@ EXCLUDE NO OTHERS a given peer group will be in the frame or excluded from it. </para> + <para> + The + optional <replaceable class="parameter">row_pattern_common_syntax</replaceable> + defines the <firstterm>row pattern recognition condition</firstterm> for + this + window. <replaceable class="parameter">row_pattern_common_syntax</replaceable> + includes following subclauses. <literal>AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST + ROW</literal> or <literal>AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW</literal> controls + how to proceed to next row position after a match + found. With <literal>AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW</literal> (the + default) next row position is next to the last row of previous match. On + the other hand, with <literal>AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW</literal> next + row position is always next to the last row of previous + match. <literal>DEFINE</literal> defines definition variables along with a + boolean expression. <literal>PATTERN</literal> defines a sequence of rows + that satisfies certain conditions using variables defined + in <literal>DEFINE</literal> clause. If the variable is not defined in + the <literal>DEFINE</literal> clause, it is implicitly assumed + following is defined in the <literal>DEFINE</literal> clause. + +<synopsis> +<literal>variable_name</literal> AS TRUE +</synopsis> + + Note that the maximu number of variables defined + in <literal>DEFINE</literal> clause is 26. + +<synopsis> +[ AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW | AFTER MATCH SKIP TO NEXT ROW ] +PATTERN <replaceable class="parameter">pattern_variable_name</replaceable>[+] [, ...] +DEFINE <replaceable class="parameter">definition_varible_name</replaceable> AS <replaceable class="parameter">expression</replaceable> [, ...] +</synopsis> + </para> + <para> The purpose of a <literal>WINDOW</literal> clause is to specify the behavior of <firstterm>window functions</firstterm> appearing in the query's -- 2.25.1 ----Next_Part(Wed_Oct__4_15_03_28_2023_821)-- Content-Type: Text/X-Patch; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="v9-0006-Row-pattern-recognition-patch-tests.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2889+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: 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 v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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 v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2889+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 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
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 -- 2023-10-04 05:51 [PATCH v9 5/7] Row pattern recognition patch (docs). 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy 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